Talk:Timeline
7 years... I think somehow it needs to be noted that there is 7 years between Trinity and Day 1, although I don't know how to show it on here. The reasoning for my knowing this is that Nina is said to have worked at CTU for 7 years on Day 1, and Trinity is the beginning of CTU, where she is present! --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC) : There are couple of things wrong with your reasoning. Firstly, Trinity does not chronicle the founding of CTU, it simply shows us their first mission. The novel even says that CTU has been around for a while, but it only became active recently. If the novel were about how Nina Myers first joined CTU, then I could agree with your reasoning, but it is not. She has been around for while here. Second, there is a problem with Kim's age based on your theory. If she is 13 here, then she would have been 20 in Day 1, which is wrong as we know that she was in high school. I think this should be changed. Trinity only occurs two years from Day 1. (RangerSmith 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)) :: RangerSmith I can see your reasoning up until you say Trinity occurs two years before Day 1. Operation Nightfall took place two years before Day 1. Doesn't this introduce too many problems? :: I never really understood why we try to reconcile a timeline between two basically unrelated universes. All the EU spin-off material from the TV show should really be considered a second canon (as the Catholics call "deutero-canonical" what Protestants name "Apocrypha") and be listed under the broad heading "Extended universe". The attempts we make to merge them with the TV show events are artificial and introduce endless complications. Even if the events fit smoothly without a hitch, we're favoring the EU content by reconciling them with the show since the show has never acknowledged the existence of EU events in-universe. But though I am obviously a 24 purist, I've still done quite a bit of upkeep and maintenance work on EU articles, and have and will never actively do anything to try to separate the continuities besides discuss it. 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC) :::24: Nightfall is really supposed to be the earliest adventure in the 24verse since most sources, even the Declassified novels state that Jack Bauer was in Delta Force before he came to CTU. I understand how you feel as a purist that the show is the one true canon, but I don't think we should ignore all the other 24 adventures that have been put out there as well, and the purpose of this timeline is to show what the chronological order of all these stories would be. If you do not choose to accept the EU as canon, that's fine, but the timeline is in place if others were to. (RangerSmith 02:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)) :::: I've been told repeatedly that Jack participated in his Nightfall mission after joining CTU, and even the novels specify this. See Talk:Operation Nightfall where Proudhug quotes from one of the novels. Jack was re-activated in Delta after joining CTU, which wasn't unusual. Also, One Shot and Trinity are supposed to be the earliest, even before Nightfall. I understand the Timeline and its usefulness, but I hope one day the wiki acquires a new paradigm with which to view the EU stories in relation to the show. 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) ::::I've just read that page. Thanks for clearing up my doubt on Operation Nightfall. But I was wondering if you could explain the rationale in putting Operation Hell Gate before Nightfall. "Timeline according to Trinity" I think this section should be removed. It's confusing, and doesn't use definitive dates. We could also have a "Timeline according to Day 1", or a "Timeline according to One Shot", what's the significance of this one? I know it has more dates in it, but the way it says "2008 (or 2009)" makes it look much too messy. As some know, the upcoming S7 Prequel's date WILL be revealed in it, allowing us to work out the actual timeline, which we may correlate into this. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 07:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC) : I agree. And I hope you're right, and we finally get a solid timeline! 07:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC) The Donation? What is The Donation? It is referred to here as being 6 months after Day 2. I've never heard of it before. SignorSimon 11:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) : From what I gather, it was a goofy car advertisement that probably barely qualifies to be in the Timeline at all. 24-themed commercials. Also, btw you and Proudhug might want to check out the latest edits to the Timeline. A fellow has made changes that I can't verify, but it looks like stuff we've discussed before. – Blue Rook 10:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)talk Removals I've removed SignorSimon's two recent additions to this page: : A note on Jason Blaine's PDA during Day 1 of The Rookie informs the audience that Coffee Run occurs on the 15th January 2007. Assuming that this took place on the same day as Season 5, due to Alton Maxwell being referred to as Deputy Director, when no other reference is made to this position, Season 5 takes place in 2007. This places Day 1 in 1999. Maybe I missed something, but where's the "assumption" that Coffee Run takes place during Day 5? : Using evidence from the 24 Declassified novel Storm Force, Season 1 could take place between November-December 2005. This is because Storm Force occurs after Hurricane Katrina, which crashed into New Orleans throughout August 2005. The novel takes place with the possibly of Hurricane Everette crashing into the city, and it is specified that it is several months after Katrina. Due to all Declassified novels taking place before Season 1, it could place the season in late 2005. I've yet to read Storm Force, but near as I can tell, no IU source claims that all the Declassified novels take place before Day 1. They're just "early missions." So, unless Nina, Jamey, Walsh, or any other pre-S1 character is mentioned to be working for CTU, there's no reason to assume this takes place before Day 1. --Proudhug 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Birthdays I think this can be moved to its own page. Anyone agree? --Proudhug 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Extra info I think we should take out all extra information... like the phone screens that show us the dates... these are not intended for the use of dates, and these mainly contradict all other information. --BauerJ24 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC) : Lots of information contradicts each other, not just the phone dates. The whole point of the theories section is to document ''all sources of dating, so that the individual reader can believe or dismiss whichever ones he/she wants. There's no official source of what is considered "extra information," so unless we all agree on one specific date, we shouldn't omit anything. --Proudhug 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Election Years I'm uncomfortable putting Day 1 in a non election year. Because once you really think about it, it's a bad idea. : Then don't. There are plenty of options, as you can see by reading this article. No one year has been set in stone, although 2002 has the most evidence so far. I don't see how it's a bad idea. --Proudhug 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Call me a nerd for having read the first 3 Declassified novels, but Trojan Horse refers to the year 2003 on multiple occassions. And since it's agreed that the novels take place prior to Day 1, then that pushes the TV part of the series a few years forward, I would imagine. --Deege515 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC) : If that were the only piece of evidence, yes. But we have so many that contradict each other, who's to say that one is right and another isn't? --Proudhug 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC) :: Me. Amongst my friends. To make myself appear more knowledgeable in trivia than them. *cough* --Deege515 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC) : Well of course. I do that too. However in the context of Wiki 24, it's not prudent. --Proudhug 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Comics, etc Even though we don't know exactly when the comics and novels happen, we know for sure the period when they were set, relative to the seasons. We can just order them within the time period they belong to, like I've done. --Pyramidhead 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC) : I realize what you're saying, but I was under the impression the the purpose of the "relative timeline" was to illustrate how much time has passed between certain stories. Since most of the novels and comics provide no specific timeframe, it undermines the whole point of the section, no? Additionally, we don't know for certain what order some stories take place in. I think One Shot was before Nightfall, but others think they're reversed. Where does Day Zero fit in with the Declassifed novels? What about the three Days in the DVD Board Game? I say we stick with just the stories that we know the specific relativity of. --Proudhug 14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Day 3 and Day 4 Prequel The given timeline is incorrect. Three Months passed between Day 3 and the beginning of the Season 4 Prequel, not 6. -- Azure Syaoran 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC) : Then why not change it? ;) --Proudhug 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 2004? I am questioning the belief that season 1 took place in 2004. I believe it took place in 2000, and my main reason is Operation Nightfall. It took place two years before season 1, so it wouldn't make much since that it occured in 2002, as the crisis in Kosovo was over and all overseas government missions would have been mostly terrorist related. It would make more since that season 1 would take place in 2000, so Nightfall would take place in 1998, as that was an intense time in Kosovo, so the mission would be more relevent. *Well I'm willing to go with whatever everyone agrees on because on many shows (The West Wing in particular) elections don't take place at the same time as they do in real life. Maybe it would make sense to have Season 1 take place when it was actually aired and go from that. --24 Administration 10:29, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC) :: I've got an extensive timeline that I've been working on which I'll start incorporating as soon as I get the chance. --Proudhug 03:01, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::: Cool. Just so we don't clutter the main page discussion up. Any further timeline chat should be on the discussion page for the article. ;) If you guys recall, in Season 3, we get a shot of Kyle Singer's license. He's supposed to be 19 and the birthdate in in 1987, setting the season in 2006 or 2007 and the first season taking place in 2002 or 2003. I've always believed that Presidential elections in the 24 universe fell on different years just like they do in the West Wing universe. This would make Operation Nightfall in 2000. This all would make the most sense to me. :I uploaded a screencapture of Kyle Singer's ID, and it does confirm that Season 3 took place in 2006, which makes this timeline incorrect. I know that Proudhug is working on a major timeline project, so should we ask people to refrain from adding dates and years based on this timeline? -Kapoli 07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC) ::I don't think we should be adding dates and years throughout the wiki calculated from any timeline. Even if there was a dialogue reference to Kyle Singer's age, and even if you can use that and the license to make a starting point, the timeline information from 24 is overall so sketchy I can't support taking any one starting point and declaring it to be canon. Timeline information should stay almost exclusively confined to this article, and I think we should also include an explanation of the other possible starting points. Any dates and years included in other articles should come directly from the show or other materials. --StBacchus 09:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) :::Well to be completely honest, I don't like the idea of the timeline dates being incorporated throughout the Wiki either. I think that if we want to say on Kyle Singer's page that he was 19 during Day 3, then that's fine since it was mentioned on the show, but I don't really like the thought of putting on the Day 3 page that the Day took place in 2006. :::I mentioned the ID because that's really one of the only actual date references in the entire show. I've noticed on several different pages birthyears like (1967 - ?) and I'm just wondering where some of that is coming from. I don't like the idea of using dates that didn't come from the show, books, comics, etc., but if we're going to use dates in the Wiki and base them off a timeline, then it should at least be a more accurate timeline. --Kapoli 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC) ::::Agreed. I was actually going to put a note on Kyle Singer's page about calculating the year (I didn't because I don't know which episode contained the age reference), but more than that would be too much. 1967 for Nina perplexes me, because her birth year would be 1968 in Proudhug's timeline and 1966 in the timeline I like. I guess you could arrive at 1967 by subtracting 34 from the year season 1 aired if you really wanted to, but why? Anyway, all this foofaraw illustrates exactly why it's a bad idea. --StBacchus 11:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Two ideas. 1. Try to ask someone from the show (through 24inside.com) about dates. Or 2. Use data references relative to season 1. Several Star Wars timelines do this (they set everything as # of years before or after Star Wars: A New Hope). We could say BS1 or AS1. FOr example, Operation Nightfall occurred 2 BS1 (two years before season 1). Season 2 occurred 1 AS1 (1 year after season 1). --Wydok 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC) : BS1 wouldn't work. There are so many actual dates given in the 24''verse that it would just become confusing combining the two dating methods. --Proudhug 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC) This entire timeline is off by at least three years. Evidence from within Wiki24 suggests Season 1 took place in 2001: "The report is dated August 26, 2002. The committee hearings took place in late November the same year as the events described in the book, after David Palmer had gone on to win the general election. This places the events of Day 1 no later than spring 2001. " - From the 24 Wiki article on the novel, "The House Special Subcommittee's Findings at CTU". This date also makes more sense, as 1999 (as mentioned below) was when the United States was actually involved in Kosovo. And most importantly, 2001 is when the show premiered - why would the producers create a show, and have it set three years in the future, it only for the sole reason of making sure the fictional presidential timeline matched up with our presidential timeline. But who says in 24 world these have to match? Clearly, they don't already as David Palmer should be been running against George W. Bush in season one. I strongly recommend a timeshift of -3 years to the current timeline structure, and if nothing else, adopting the aforementioned Star Wars EU method, of back/forward dating everything in relation to "The Day Of The California Presidential Primary". Am I the only one who agrees with this? --JPizzle1122 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) :You're not the only one aware of the problem, JPizzle1122. Most of us are aware of the fact that this timeline (and Wiki24) are full of incorrect dates. One of the admins is in the middle of working on a timeline for 24.... and he plans to correct wrong dates/incorporate the right dates when he's finished. For now, my advice would be to just ignore any dates you see on this Wiki. As for doing everything in relation to "Super Tuesday/Day 1", I personally think this idea wouldn't work. It would be confusing and hard for new visitors to follow. -Kapoli 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC) :: Ok cool, I look forward to seeing how the situation is resolved. --JPizzle1122 04:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) :: The ''24 timeline is riddled with confusion. As I've been extensively working on the timeline for the show, I've come to the conclusion that placing Day 1 in 2002 makes about 80% of everything fit. Despite this, there are still on-screen dates that put S1 in 2001 and S2 in 2002. The House Special Subcommittee's Findings at CTU goes back in forth with evidence that supports either year. Mark DeSalvo started working at the underground prison in 2002. Clearly that means S1 takes place no earlier than that. No date works perfectly, but it clearly has to be either 2001 or 2002. As I mentioned, the latter makes the most sense. :: I've currently been ignoring the timeline information which has already been posted, even though it's clearly completely wrong, because I'm waiting to finish my project first. If it continues to be a problem with new visitors pointing out the error(s), I could start changing things asap, and add to it as I go along. :: As for dating things relative to Day 1, like Kapoli says this wouldn't work. It's a good idea in theory, but it would cause a lot of confusion for people. Mainly because there are a lot of real dates that are specifically given. Reconciling the two would be a nightmare. --Proudhug 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC) The book doesn't go back and forth. The August 2002 date is on the title page and nearly every other page; it's only the DeSalvo one that doesn't fit. We should simply restate the time cues as they are in the series: "Three years ago, you had an affair with my wife," "When my daughter died two years ago," and so on. Incidentally, I personally think 2000 makes the most sense as the starting date of Day 1. It fits for a presidential primary, Milosevic, and the beginning air date of the series. But the fact is, we don't know and we probably aren't supposed to know. --StBacchus 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I think that we should go with 2002. 90% of the evidence supports 2002. Example: Mark DeSalvo started working at the MUDD in 2002. Also, S1 took place on "Super Tuesday". Super Tuesday, or Primaries, take place in March or April. Since Palmer was wearing a pin that did NOT come out until September 11, 2001, it is impossible for S1 to take place in 2001. The writers wrote it and released it in November, 2001, so it would be pointless to make it six months previous unless mentioned. Also, Kyle Singer's ID showed us that S3 took place in 2006, making S1 take place in 2002. Unless Kyle's ID proves that S3 took place before mid-Autumn in 2006, we cannot assume that S1 took place in 2001. Since 2002 makes the most sense, why can we not have these dates and update them as we get more information in following seasons? At the very least, we need to set up some dating system, even if it means waiting until after 24 is over forever to set it up. BauerJ24 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC) :I don't know how many times we have to say that Proudhug is already actively working on something for a timeline. He's been doing research and compiling information for a LONG time, and when he's ready with it, he'll post the information. There are plenty of other things to focus on for the time being.... -Kapoli 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) :: Check out this article itself. It already has all the evidence you mentioned within it. --Proudhug 22:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Proudhug, does that mean you aren't going to post it? BauerJ24, why, again, do we need to have dates? There is contradictory evidence for any year we might pick. Choosing a "best" year and propagating that idea throughout the wiki is against our own Neutral Point of View Policy. There's no way we should ever do that. But since you brought up some new arguments, let's take a look. * The FaCTU book isn't canon, and you're cherry-picking anyway. * The first episode was ready for broadcast in late September, not November. The air date was pushed back because of 9/11. Anyway, it doesn't make any more sense to assume that the timeline starts ahead of the show's production than it does to assume it's behind the show's production. * TV shows do not emerge fully formed from their creator's minds. After writing the first script, they had to hire the crew, cast the actors, build the set, scout and secure locations, shoot the pilot, and shop the pilot around. And leave enough time to shoot additional episodes. It's entirely likely the presidential primary idea was developed before 2001 (like, in 2000, the year of an actual presidental primary). * The pin might have been added by the set designer, props master, director, or Dennis Haysbert. The ID might have been the responsibility of the set designer, props master, or special effects team. Unless there's some evidence that the writers were aiming to create a coherent timeline (which happens, but not on this show), it's unlikely the writers or producers had anything to do with either of those things. If the writers/producers wanted to pin a date to any season, they have had ample opportunity to do so. That the dates we have are sporadic and unreliable would seem to say all that needs to be said about the intent of the show's writers and producers. --StBacchus 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC) ::Right, so where are we? I personally think what we have now on this "timeline" page is fine. A relative timeline and then several theories about years let readers make up their own mind. I also think that pages such as 2001, 2002 etc. should just be deleted. They have no purpose but to confuse readers. Anyway, who are we to say when the show is/was set? --24 Administration 22:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) :::I completely agree with everything 24 Administration is saying. I've never liked or seen a use for the 2001, 2002, etc. pages and I think the best we can hope for right now is the relative timeline we have. I don't like the dates in the character pages, like: Jack Bauer (1967-?) or whatever else we've got around here. I say we get rid of all of that crap! -Kapoli 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) : How can you say we have no need for 2001, 2002, etc.? Unlike the dates for each season, some things are established facts. CTU was founded in 1993. Andre Drazen served in the Serbian Army from 1989 to 1999. Mark DeSalvo became warden of the underground prison in 2002. These are established dates, not theoretical. There's no discrepency here and they're not relative to anything. There's no reason to not document this information as we document all other information here. Until the show gives us a for-certain date, however, we can't include most other timeline information, unfortunately. --Proudhug 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ::The only date page I clicked on before responding was 2001, which has no relevant information to the TV show at all. I'm fine with years like 1993 which can have a list of events from the show, but if we don't have anything relating to 24 to put on the page, we shouldn't have it. -Kapoli 19:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) : Of course. There is information on most years, it just hasn't been added yet. --Proudhug 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Day 3 Intel -- Saunders Pic Jack said that the picture of he and Saunders that he showed Jane during Day 3 8:00am-9:00am was taken more than 8 years before Day 3. However, this does not coincide with the timeline, as Nightfall was 2 years plus the time between Days 1 and 3, which was 4.5 years, making 6.5 total. Unless I did my math wrong, is something missing or did I miss something in the DVD? --BauerJ24 20:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC) "Jack Bauer was stated to be 49 on Day 7"-- When? I don't remember anyone stating Jack's age during Day 7, but since I don't have any evidence that proves otherwise, I won't edit that. Can anyone confirm this, though? --Dann-Fonda 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)